Reality Bites: Swing-State Math

In '04, I traveled as a surrogate for the John Kerry campaign. I was sent to places like Iowa, Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and Florida. Quite the roadtrip.

In the beginning, I wondered why I kept getting sent to these random "swing states." Iowa (a state in 2004 with, yes folks, only one Starbucks!!) Why did Iowa matter? I was a political novice. So dumb. So naïve.

To me, it seemed so terribly undemocratic that a handful of states could determine who became our president. Likewise, It never truly clicked in my head when my New Yorker friends would wryly state that their vote didn't count. Of course their vote counted. Every vote counts. This is America, right?

And then on Election Day '04, I learned the hard way why those swing states mattered so much. John Kerry lost Ohio and Florida and therefore lost the election to George Bush. Four more grueling years of Republican rule. My impression on that sad day? 1460 days to go.

Now with roughly 240 days until Election Day '08, one thing remains the same: THE ONLY VOTES THAT WILL MAKE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ELECTING JOHN MCCAIN AND A DEMOCRAT TO THE WHITE HOUSE ARE THE SWING STATES.

So with all this talk of delegates and superdelegates counting and not counting, why has nobody (at least to my knowledge) looked at how either Clinton or Obama performs against McCain in the crucial 15 swing states? Frankly speaking, isn't that really all that matters?

Let's consider:

1. "Not a Chance" Red States

First, consider the 20-22 states that are historically Red States. In other words, these states go to the Republicans no matter what. For example, in '04 John Kerry only got 37% of the vote in Kansas. In Texas, Kerry only got 38% of the vote. See my point? These states include: Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Alaska, North Dakota, Kansas, Texas, Montana, South Dakota, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana, Tennessee, Arizona, West Viriginia, North Carolina.

Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton in many of these states. Undoubtedly, these wins have contributed to building Obama's "unstoppable momentum."

But, on Election Day '08 Barack Obama will not win any of these states. Neither will Hillary Clinton. They will go to John McCain.

Thus, keep in mind that any current Democratic wins in these states (or Obama momentum gained) is meaningless.

2. "Sure Thing" Blue States

Next, consider the 13 states that are historically Democrat in nature. In other words, these states always vote Democrat-even if Big Bird was on the ticket. These include: Maryland, New York, Vermont, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, District of Columbia, Washington, New Jersey, Delaware, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine.

Either Barack or Hillary will win these states on Election Day '08, so they do not factor into any analysis as to who is a stronger Democratic Presidential candidate. In short, these numbers are meaningless.

The CORE ISSUE

For there to be a Democratic president, the Democratic nominee must hold all states won by John Kerry in '04 by less than 5% plus at least one more from the states that Bush won by less than 5%. If the Democratic nominee loses one more state than John Kerry, then we need to pick up more than one other swing state to make up that difference. Got it?

So let's take a look at the 15 "Battleground/Swing" States:

A."Must Hold Onto" States:

First there are the states that we must match John Kerry. These are the 6 "Must Hold On To" States where Democrats won within 5%: New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and Minnesota.

So far, New Hampshire and Minnesota have held their primaries. Hillary won New Hampshire and Barack won Minnesota. A draw.

Regrettably to date, Michigan and Pennsylvania remain unknown.

Also note that John McCain is incredibly popular in New Hampshire.

Finally, because Michigan is led by Democrats and faces an economic malaise, there might be a Democratic backlash in '08, meaning it might be vulnerable and ripe for Republicans. Unfortunately, Obama and Edwards withdrew from the ballot and we have no numbers for Michigan. This is obviously a huge and unfortunate screw-up.

To repeat though, we must "hold onto" all 6 states--including Michigan.

B. "Let's Get 'Em Back" States:

Nine states are states where the Republicans won within 5%. These are: Arkansas, Missouri, Virginia, Colorado, Florida, Nevada, Iowa, Ohio, New Mexico. These states are where we find our plus one more than Kerry.

Remember we must win one of these additional states (ergo, plus one more) to get the White House in '08. Moreover if we accidentally lose Michigan to McCain, we will need to pick up more than one of these states to make up that difference.

Thus, how Obama and Hillary run in these states really, really matters.

So far Obama took Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, Missouri and New Mexico. Hillary won Arkansas and Nevada.

Most notably, Florida and Ohio (the two key states that Kerry lost in '04) remain unknown.

Who might run stronger in Florida or Ohio? Does anyone have answers? Where is the data that proves that Barack Obama when pinned against John McCain runs better than Hillary Clinton in states like Florida and Ohio? Or any of the other 13 swing states for that matter?

How should Democrats feel about Barack Obama not credibly building the bulk of his "unstoppable momentum" in these 15 vital states? Should Democrats feel vulnerable with just the unstoppable Obama on the ticket? What do you think Karl Rove thinks?

What does this all mean?

For starters it means that on Election Day '08 it doesn't matter a hill of beans that Barack Obama beat the pants off Hillary Clinton in places like Idaho. Idaho hasn't figured into Democratic numbers/analysis for years. So cool your jets with the whole Obama momentum bit.

Likewise it doesn't matter that Obama may have better national poll numbers against McCain. National numbers don't mean squat on Election Day.

Fifteen states, folks. That's all that matters. Those 15 states should be our sole focus TODAY. Because if we want the Democrats in the White House in '08 then we need to support the Democratic Candidates who run best in the crucial swing states. And that means we need to support BOTH Hillary and Barack until we have a more definitive answer. Period. End of Story.

Like it or not, the hard, undeniable, and very real numbers speak for themselves. Neither candidate can (as of yet) win the vital swing states alone which is why both Obama and Clinton need each other on Election Day 08.

Democrats it is time for us to grow up, smarten up, and rise up above ourselves and our differences (however big or small they may be) because we've got a White House to win back.

Once again, i reiterate: UNITY TICKET '08

POSTSCRIPT: HuffPost doesn't allow for a dual byline so I need to take this space to credit and source Jim Henry over at submergingmarkets.com who helped me write this piece. Jim is a passionate Obama supporter and very good friend--not to mention a scary smart numbers guy. So thank you Jim...and Happy Valentine's Day.

Comments

[Groobiecat]

Interesting analysis, but it's not *just* about history, and Red/Blue states. I think you're forgetting that this isn't John Kerry who's running for president. The real questions include: How many people voted for Kerry vs. will vote for Barack? He's got republicans voting for him in the primaries, for god's sake! And a LOT of these people actively dislike McCain. That wasn't the case with Bush in 2004, though.

Independents--they will play a much larger role this time around, as more and more disaffected Republicans and undecided become "I" voters. Many of these people will vote for McCain, sure, but everyone knows that they make up a large base for Barack as well. And one thing you don't address is how much this group tends to really dislike Hillary so much so that if she's the candidate, they'll swing to McCain.

Circumstances--You don't address what's going on in the country. We're in a war we chose that has killed 1,000,000 people. Most people don't know this, oddly enough. When Barack starts throwing that number at McCain and asking him "How can you say that after being responsible for the deaths of 1,000,000 people that we're safer?"

The economy is horrendous, and the war is being funded by Chinese owned loans, basically. McCain supports war, McCain gives money to China, McCain indebts us for eons--how's that good for America?

You make valid points, you just don't account for context; for the crossroads of history that we're facing as a nation...

[mouselion]

"he's got republicans voting for him in the primaries, for god's sake! "

So that they don't have to run against Hillary in the general election. They're very afraid of Billary and see Obama as an easy knock-off. . .

[vsign]

mouselion - I think most people on this list don't know the country between the coasts. I know middle america. McCain is the perfect choice for the republicans to beat Obama.

If the Democratic Party gets hood winked into believing Obama can win, we'll just have another republican for eight years. The Republicans think they can defeat our party so bad (if it's Obama) that we won't recover. I agree.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Why, oh why, can't the Obamanistas even see this as a (gasp) possibility?

[Groobiecat]

LOL. Yeah, it's a well crafted conspiracy, clearly. They all got together after watching Hannity and Colms and developed the master plan: if we vote for Obama, we won't have to run against Hillary, and that would be bad because most Republicans and Independents will vote for her!

That runs counter to pretty much all data about her chances in November. Many Republicans *want* Hillary to be the nominee to reunite a fractured party--she's their key ally. The ones voting for Obama? They're the disaffected Republicans who feel betrayed by the party.

Easy knock off? You mean, like the easy knock off he has been for Hillary. Umm, right. . .

[joyncassie]

The issue with this argument is, that even though Hillary won states like Nevada and New Hampshire, Obama is currently polling far better than Hillary in those states against John McCain. The brilliant part of Obama's plan is that you campaign everywhere. By making every state a contest, you force the Republican's to do the same. Turnout and enthusiasm will be Obama's friend, throughout republican territory. Then when he wins, he will be able to claim the mandate in the entire US, that will allow him to govern.
He may not win over every red state, but no state will feel that he is not trying to speak to them. If not now, when will we ever have a better chance for the Democrats to make this play.

[vsign]

Obama's coalition does not include me so I won't vote for him and the bluff Obama is playing won't end up being a winning hand. I live in middle america and know all you guys supporting Obama are deluded about who lives in my state and how we think. I care about solutions. All this strategy Obama has convinced you that he can win is silly. Obama belongs in a mega-church.

[Groobiecat]

Read his plans before you decide: www.barackobama.com. This isn't just koolaid, it's reasoned, considered policy, and it will work. We've spent 7 years not believing our eyes--it's time to believe again. It's okay that this guy is genuine and engaging; that's not a bad thing. Read his policies; he and his advisers are super sharp.

You don't become the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review by being a wallflower, and you don't get this far by having thin skin.

At least read his positions on the issues, and if you don't like 'em, fine. But don't just hate the guy because he makes good speeches and young people think he's a rock star...

[DietrichMoody]

People are starting to get it, even Margaret Carlson noted,

Hillary " has an explanation for why each of Obama's victories is inferior to hers. His wins are in teeny-weeny states (Virginia, Washington state, Missouri?)
Clinton is trying to pull a Rosie Ruiz. Ruiz, the putative winner of the Boston Marathon in 1980, actually sat out much of the race only to emerge near the finish line to claim victory. Clinton is virtually not running anywhere in February, planning to re-emerge in March to sprint to the finish line by triumphing in races in Texas and Ohio. Rudy Giuliani tried this in Florida, only to find that his chosen field of play would be his final resting place. Just as Clinton pretends that any primary she doesn't win doesn't count by refusing to congratulate the winner, Obama's wins are getting bigger and broader."
http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_carlson&sid=azceW2G4gToM

Hillary, sitting out much of this Presidential Prmary race only to emerge near the finish line to claim victory - appearing as though Obama is an INCONVENIENCE TO HER, is going to cause electorate to say, "why the hell have Presidential Primaries??" Are the Clinton's attempting to undermine the whole process?

This disingenuous on the part of the Clinton campaign is abusive, and an assault on the electorate.

[CaveatMagnusFrater]

If you don't like the way a candiate campaigns, don't vote for that candidate. I don't see an assault. I think you just don't like Clinton and this is just an excuse to insult her.

[getrealalready]

KB, I had no clue Mr. Henry left my office for yours until - l-a-t-e-r
after the fact.

[cbm17]

a Hillary supporter? yeah you are dreaming. There's no question at all that Obama has a better chance in places like Virginia. also, when a state has a closed primary, that doesn't mean that the winner would necessarily fair better than the loser did in the general. If HRC is the candidate (something that could only happen by her stealing it by way of super delegates or having MI or FLA sat), it would be another nailbiter that we could lose in Ohio or Florida...if Obama is the candidate it would not even be that close and would pick up 5-10 states more than last time.....
I actually think that you are too pessimistic about those "hold onto" states: we won't lose Minnesota, or NH, or MI or PA.but if it's HRC the map looks a lot like 2000 or 2004.

[Merin]

continued - Part Two

Looking back to 2 and 3, however, there are some obstacles to consider.

2 was Independents. Senator Clinton does nowhere near as good at Senators Obama and McCain with them. If she is the Democratic Candidate, McCain will gain most likely gain more "swing" voters. If Obama gets the nomination, odds are that his solid anti-war stance plus his high likability ratings will allow him to gather the greater share of independents over McCain.

3 was the War vs. Anti-War debate. Obama can win this one fairly easily against McCain. Clinton, however, will have a tougher time defending being against the war but not saying her vote to authorize the war wasn't wrong. It will be harder for her to sway anti-war voters (Democrats, independents and Republicans) to trust her to end the war.

A unity ticket will simply bring the negatives of Senator Clinton to the National Election - we lose independents to McCain and anti-war voters will either not vote or vote for a 3rd party. Do not underestimate this. Senator Clinton could potentially still win over Senator McCain, but it would be a slim margin and other than some ultra-feminists (the ones who desperately want a female president regardless of all else) the enthusiasm on the Democratic side would at least partially deflate (the youth vote, for example, would evaporate.)

I would never go so far to say that Senator Clinton SHOULD step aside - she has every right to run and keep running and she has a great chance of winning the nomination, and a female president would be a good thing if that's all you look at, yes. But I wish she WOULD see the movement that is happening with Senator Obama's supporters, and see that the party would be stronger if she backed him and became Head of the Senate (goodbye Reid!) or the next Supreme Court Justice. Neither of those great positions would be subject to negativity on the parts of Republicans, independents, anti-war protesters nor Progressives upset with Senator Clinton's voting record.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Given the notion of Hillary as Senate Majority leader (head of Senate being VP, and I don't think Obama would offer, nor Hillary accept), I prefer that to Hillary on the Supreme Court (though I have previously written in support of that when the alternatives given were cabinet positions).

A Supreme Court justice should not be a politician. Period. Bad idea for the nation.

Not to mention the confirmation brawl.

[Merin]

Part One
1. Republicans are dissatisfied with their choices (choice?) Democrats are excited by their choices. This is across the country.
Favor - Democratic Party
2. Senator McCain and Senator Obama gain a lot of support from independents. This is across the country. Historically the way the independents swing tends to decide the election.
Favor - Technically a tie, but more on this later.
3. The Republican ticket is supporting the war, more war, and never-ending war. The Democratic ticket, whomever gets the nom, is at least lip-synching "end the war." For those who have the war as one of their top issues, the Democratic Party is more favorable.
Favor - Technically the Democratic Party, but more on this later.
4. In the "Red States" (I hate this antiquated, divisive thinking - you keep calling them "Red States" and "unwinnable" and they WILL be - 2006 showed that it might be the better policy to compete in all 50 states with fervor than to just target certain states as it worked very well!) the Democratic turn out for the Primaries was more than the Republican, often having the Democratic candidate with the lower vote tally still having higher results than all the Republican candidates COMBINED. In the RED STATES.
Favor - Democratic Party

The Democratic Party needs to make a MAJOR blunder or several minor ones to lose the Presidency this time around, especially with no incumbent running. Now the Democratic Party is STELLAR at this, for example choosing Kerry for the ticket in 2004 or Al Gore running the "zero charisma" campaign in 2000.

-continued

[abt]

Sen. Obama will beat McCain in November by a landslide - driven by the huge turnout of first-time voters, African-Americans, independents, and a surge of Democratic energy across the board.

He will win a large number of formerly red states that Clinton (or other unappealing and flawed candidates like John Kerry and Al Gore) would not have competed in.

You heard it here first.

A.T.
Seattle

[westview]

There are no formerly red states. Get a clue here. Part of what the republicans have done in the past eight years is to redraw districts so red stays red and blue stays blue but gets way smaller territory. Also red state Obama voters have been willing to cross lines in primaries and causcus events to help McCain by helping Hillary lose the opening rounds so they can run against the weaker candidate. Popularity with liberals, minority voters, and college students does not mean states change from red to blue in November.
It does means the newer candidate got a hand going against the better known candidate during the early heats of the qualifying matches. In the final contest those red voters will go back home to their party and hurt the new guy. Upshot is, we lose again and the pundits will all talk afterwards about how the dems put their hopes once again into a charismatic left wing candidate that could not win with the more centrist electorate and more right wing red state voters.

[vsign]

Westview - Thanks for trying to explain things to the Obama worshipers.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

HEADLINES!

Obama less flawed than Kerry or Gore!

Rullly?

[djcny]

Hillary won New Mexico.

[RealistDem]

congratulations on that one delegate victory.

[kroses98]

It wasn't even one delegate. I heard it was an even split. And even that came after more election fraud.

[SteveCox]

Hillary won Florida, too! And is about 17 points ahead of Obama in Ohio. This is pretty much what I've been saying all along.

We have to suffer through these obnoxious syncophat obamanites braggin' bout winnin Idaho and Utah, it means NOTHING!

This sorta remind me when Sugar Ray Leonard won a split decision over Marvin Haggler. He basically stole it by running away and making it look like he was doing something that was not even hurting Haggler.

If Obama wins this by sneaking through a bunch of red state caucasses where he has charged up college students, who may not even shot up in November, what good is that if you lose Florida and Ohio.

He won't win in any real Red states. Hillary will win Arkansas, Neveda, and New Mexico.

The Democratic Party needs to pay for 2 PRIMARIES on the same day PA votes. Both Fla, and MICH. Need to be done over so we can avoid tearing this party apart.

The media also needs to start giving Obama some scrutiny. I want to know more about his background. This is a joke! I don't even need to watch American Idol this year, we have the Democratic Primary!

[DietrichMoody]

"The media also needs to start giving Obama some scrutiny. I want to know more about his background."

Enough with this "obsession with vetting". Read his books. Go to his Campaign website, go see a rally.

You want it easy - and You want the media to do everything for you.??

You want you're leaders to tell you how to think too??

[billydog]

Democrats are rallying huge numbers to vote while the Republicans are not. This factor alone will make all the difference come November. Newt Gingrich himself tells Republicans to prepare for a rout this election. I think he is right.

[santamonica39]

The basic premise of your argument is not valid - i.e. that who wins the democratic primary in so-called swing states has a better chance of winning that state in the general election.

With few exceptions, voters in the primary are registered democrats, who will likely vote for whichever democrat is on the ticket in November. In order to win in swing states, a candidate must appeal to people outside of his or her party and pull in independent voters and even moderate republicans as well. This is what gave Bill Clinton a decisive victory in 2006 against Bob Dole. He got all the democrats and a number of independents and republicans who were satisfied with his job performance and weren't fired up by their own candidate. So the important thing is to look at which candidate is appealing more to independents and moderate republicans, and so far the polls have indicated that Obama does and Clinton clearly does not.

The other key take-away from the last election is that it is dangerous for democrats if the republican base (the far right) becomes ignited and motivated to come to the polls. In 2004 they were passionate about both George Bush and also about defeating state ballot initiatves that republicans cleverly supported in key states banning gay marriage. They knew this would bring their troops out to the pools, and it did. Hillary Clinton may be the most hated politician among the far right wing of the republican party (and even among many moderate republicans). This is most certainly not fair, but it is a fact. If in fact they are not that excited about John McCain, the prospect of Hillary Clinton as president may be all the republican party needs to get their faithful out to the polls.

[vsign]

Don't take my loyal democratic vote for granted. Same mistake Obama has made all along. He needs my vote in my state in the general and the way he has treated me - he don't have it yet.

[santamonica39]

Note, that I said they will "likely vote for whatever democrat is on the ticket". I stand by that, a few disgruntled Hillary supporters aside. The one thing that might disenfranchise millions of democrats, however, would be Hillary stealing the primary election by getting meaningless primary votes in Florida and Michigan to count and amassing superdelegates - some of whom work for or are related to her - to sway the election away from Obama.

[getrealalready]

I suspect that the voting public sees the handwriting on the wall by now. James Carville said Democrats like to fight, and we do. However, we don't want to lose the election. The main point is: you can't mix Hillary and Obama together like a generic substitute for a curing prescription.

[Ides]

Heh. Old school political ramblings.

In other news, Obama beats Hillary in the Swing State Math, too. Now what?

[Gina5966]

Yes, let's not even try. That's the ticket! Thanks for another dissertation on how to have a short-term strategy for the Democratic Party.
Sorry, I drank the "50 State Strategy" Kool-Aid a long time ago. (Thanks Howard!)
15 states! Wow!
Thanks for writing us off!

[SethBLiNK]

Great. Very logical. Only that's not how it works, so that's not how they're going to play it. If there is one thing this election has shown us is that the conventional wisdom is not to be trusted. If one of those unwinnable states might be won, it's worth campaigning in all of them.

We have two strong candidates. They have a guy whose "brand" is about what a maverick he is, but who is betraying his own beliefs to win over a conservative electorate who have already elected him. So no matter how much time and energy we are wasting on unneccessary states, they are wasting more.